alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. M ARK B E NDER ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt, No. 16-50021

D.C . No. 2:08-c r-01273-SJO
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia S. Jam e s Ote ro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : W ALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. M ark B e nde r a

ppe a ls from the distric t

c o urt’ s judgm e nt a

nd c ha lle nge s a spe c ia l c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se im

pose d upon re voc a tion of his supe rvise d
re le a se . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for a buse of 

# FIL ED
DEC 20 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his d isposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion and is n ot pre c e d e nt e xc e pt a s provide d by

Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa ne l una nim ously c onc lud es t h is cas e is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).disc re tion, Unite d State s v . Rudd, 662 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th C ir. 2011), a nd we
va c a te and re m and for re se nte nc ing. B e nde r c ha lle nge s the spe c ia l c ondition of supe rvise d re le a se tha

t prohibits him from hav ing a ny c onta c t with m inors othe r tha n fam ily m e m

be rs, with the
e xc e ption of fre que nting loc a tions, suc h a s re sta urants, tha

t m ay e m ploy m inors. The distric t c ourt did not e xpla in its re a sons for im posing this c ondition, nor a re its
re a s ons a ppa re nt from the re c ord. Se e Unite d State s v . C ollins , 684 F.3d 873, 890 (9th C ir. 2012). The only a lle gations in the re c ord tha

t re fe re n c e d a

m i nor we re
c onta ine d in a

dism i sse d c ha

rge tha t B e nde r spe c ific a lly

dispute d a

nd tha t the distric t c o urt e xpre ssly de c line d to c onside r. Ac c ordingly , we re m and to the distric t c o urt to e ithe r va c a te the c ondition or provide suffic ie nt justific a tion for it. Se e id. a t 892. V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D .

1 6
- 5 0 0 2 1 2
S16A0992.

#### LESLIE v. THE STATE.

(791 SE2d 49)

HUNSTEIN, Justice.

Appellant Nicholas Leslie appeals from the denial of what he styled as a “Motion to Void Illegal Sentence.” We affirm.

In September 1999, Leslie pleaded guilty to malice murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In June 2015, he filed a “Motion to Void Illegal Sentence.” In an accompanying brief, Leslie argued that his sentence was void because, among other reasons, he received ineffective assistance of counsel and his plea was involuntary. The trial court construed the pleading as an untimely motion to withdraw a guilty plea and dismissed it. On appeal, Leslie reiterates those claims raised below.

Leslie’s motion, which failed to assert any argument relevant to a void-sentence claim, was properly construed as a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. See, e.g., *von Thomas v. State,*293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013) (“[A] defendant cannot assert a claim that his conviction was unlawful in an untimely motion to vacate his sentence simply by dressing it up as a claim that his sentence was void.”). However, a motion to withdraw a guilty plea “must be filed within the same term of court at which the guilty plea or judgment being challenged was entered.” See *Hagan v. State,*290 Ga. 353, 353 (720 SE2d 645) (2012). “[A]fter the expiration of the term and of the time for filing an appeal from the conviction, the only remedy available to the defendant for withdrawing a plea is through habeas corpus proceedings.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) *Harris v. State,*278 Ga. 805, 807 (2) (606 SE2d 248) (2004). Leslie’s motion cannot, however, be construed as a habeas corpus petition because it was filed in the wrong county, see OCGA § 9-14-43, and outside the four-year *637limitation period imposed for such petitions, see OCGA § 9-14-42 (c). Accordingly, Leslie’s motion was properly dismissed as an untimely motion to withdraw a guilty plea. See *Davis v. State,*274 Ga. 865, 865 (561 SE2d 119) (2002).

Decided September 12, 2016.

Nicholas D. Leslie, *pro se.*

*Tracy Graham Lawson, District Attorney, Elizabeth A. Baker, Assistant District Attorn ey; Samuel S. Olens, Attorney Gen eral, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
1 of 2 ADC 46

Attachment

APPROVED DLMS CHANGE 46

Clarification of Estimated Delivery Date in DLMS Supplement 

for 527D, Due-In, Advance Receipt/Due-in Validation

a. ORIGINATOR:

a. Service/Agency: HQ, IOC, USA, for Joint Ammunition Management Standard 

System (JAMSS) Program Office (JPO)

b. Originator: Gary Deitch, Army IOC

b. FUNCTIONAL AREA:

a. Primary: Due-In and Advance Receipt Information

b. Secondary(ies): None

c. REQUESTED CHANGE:

a. Title: 527D, Materiel Due-in and Receipt (Due-In/Advance Receipt/Due-In 

Validation), Clarification on Use of Estimated Delivery Date.

b. Description of Change: Provide clarification regarding the content of the 

527D Due-in/Advance Receipt/Due-in Verification IC as follows:

The 2/G62/050 segment level note 1 states that the segment must be used for due-in 

transactions to convey the estimated delivery date. The code level note for Code 17 

Estimated Delivery Date requires the use of the code (e.g., Must use ... ) for the due-in, 

advance receipt information, delinquent due-in inquiry, and due-in reconciliation inquiry 

transactions. There is a conflict between these two notes as to when the code is 

required and when its use is optional.

As discussed at SPRC meeting 01-2, the 2/G62/050 will be revised to provide for 

use of the EDD in the 527D, consistent with the use of the EDD in the 

equivalent MILSTRAP transactions as follows:

 (1) 2/G62/050 Segment Level note 1: “1. Must use one repetition for duein and advance receipt information transactions to identify the estimated delivery 

date.”

(2) 2/G6201/050 Code 17, Estimated Delivery Date, CVIN: “Must use in 

each due-in and advance receipt information, delinquent due-in inquiry, and due-in 

reconciliation inquiry transaction. Use with delinquent due-in advice and due-in 
2 of 2 ADC 46

Attachment

reconciliation advice transactions only when providing a revised date. Use with due-in 

inquiry, and due-in reconciliation inquiry when available.

4. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES:

a. Advantages: This clarification removes an apparent ambiguity from the current 

IC.

b. Disadvantages: No know disadvantages.

5. IMPACT:

a. Data Content/Procedures: 527D DLMS Supplement notes will be revised.

b. Publication(s): DLMS Manual, 527D DLMS Supplement.
Exhibit 31.4

Certifications

Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael Binney, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Emerson Radio Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

Date: July 28, 2017



/s/ Michael BinneyMichael BinneyChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has been provided to Emerson Radio Corp. and
will be retained by Emerson Radio Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3058 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out a 

program to address the health crisis of insufficient vaccinations, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2019 

Ms. JACKSON LEE (for herself, Ms. NORTON, Ms. MOORE, Ms. SEWELL of 

Alabama, Ms. PRESSLEY, Ms. JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. CAROLYN B. 

MALONEY of New York, Mr. PAYNE, and Mrs. MCBATH) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 

carry out a program to address the health crisis of 

insufficient vaccinations, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Vaccination Informa5 tion and Promotion Act of 2019’’ or the ‘‘VIP Act of 

6 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3058 IH

1 SEC. 2. ADDRESSING THE HEALTH CRISIS OF INSUFFI2 CIENT VACCINATIONS. 

3 The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in con4 sultation with the Director of the Centers for Disease Con5 trol and Prevention, shall develop and implement a pro6 gram to reverse the decline in the rate of childhood vac7 cinations, including by— 

8 (1) conducting a national effort to increase pub9 lic awareness of and knowledge about the benefits of 

10 childhood vaccinations; 

11 (2) supporting the development of a broad 

12 range of communication tools to inform the public 

13 on the importance of vaccinations; 

14 (3) acting through the Director of the National 

15 Institutes of Health, making more readily available 

16 on federally hosted social media specific information 

17 from the scientific and medical community on the 

18 importance of vaccinations to the health and well19 being of infants, children, young adults, adults, and 

20 the elderly; and 

21 (4) awarding grants and other financial assist22 ance to public and private educational institutions, 

23 and non-governmental (including nonprofit) and 

24 other appropriate entities that serve children, stu25 dents, and the elderly, to implement vaccination edu26 cation programs. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 3058 IH

1 SEC. 3. GAO STUDY. 

2 The Comptroller General of the United States shall 

3 conduct, and submit to the Congress a report on the re4 sults of, a study on the change over time in public atti5 tudes toward childhood vaccinations and the reasons un6 derlying such changes. 

7 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

8 To carry out this Act, there is authorized to be appro9 priated $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 

10 2025. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Analysis Report

January 15, 2010

CEDAR FALLS UTILITIES

PO BOX 769

CEDAR FALLS IA 50613

ATTN: AMY K. SHATEK

Page 1 of 1

Client Sample ID:

Date Received:

MAMMOTHPULV122309 Sample ID By: Cedar Falls Utilities

Sample Taken At: Cedar Falls Utilities

Sample Taken By: Cedar Falls Utilities

Sample Type: Pulverized Coal

P. O. #: BPO1800

Product Description: COAL

Date Sampled: Dec 29, 2009

Dec 29, 2009

SGS Minerals Sample ID: 491-0941947-001

As Received Dry DAF

Moisture, Total % ASTM D3302 20.54

Ash % ASTM D3174 5.79 7.29

Sulfur % ASTM D4239 Method B 0.45 0.56

Gross Calorific Value BTU/LB ASTM D5865 9928 12493 13476

Carbon % ASTM D5373 56.91 71.62

Hydrogen % ASTM D5373 3.86 4.86

Nitrogen % ASTM D5373 1.88 2.37

Oxygen % ASTM D5373 (by diff) 10.57 13.30

Chlorine, Cl % ASTM D4208 0.01 0.01

Fluorine, F UG/G ASTM D3761 31 39.0

Mercury, Hg UG/G ASTM D6722 0.03

Method

Tests Result Unit Method

Silver, Ag <0 μg/g ASTM D3683

ANALYSIS OF ASH

Barium, Ba 65 μg/g ASTM D3682

TRACE ELEMENTS - DRY BASIS

Arsenic, As 3 μg/g ASTM D3683

Cadmium, Cd <0 μg/g ASTM D3683

Chromium, Cr 4 μg/g ASTM D3683

Lead, Pb 4 μg/g ASTM D3683

Selenium, Se 0 μg/g ASTM D3683

Vanadium, V 10 μg/g ASTM D3683

Zinc, Zn 5 μg/g ASTM D3683

Vanessa Chambliss

Branch Manager

SGS North America Inc.

Minerals Services Division

16130 Van Drunen Road South Holland t (708) 331-2900 f (708) 333-3060 www.sgs.com/minerals

Member of the SGS Group (Société Générale de Surveillance) This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at http://www.sgs.com/terms_and_conditions.htm. Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, 

indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein.

Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company’s findings at the time of its intervention only and within the limits of Client’s instructions, if any. The Company’s sole responsibility is to its Client and this document does not exonerate parties to a transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents. Any 

unauthorized alteration, forgery or falsification of the content or appearance of this document is unlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 25, 2011

p0718 

# Order

July 25, 2011

142961

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142961 COA: 302541 Saginaw CC: 09-032822-FC MICHAEL EARL YOUNG, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 21, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3887-3888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1866]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-174-000]


Millennium Energy Corporation; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 21, 1998.
    Millennium Energy Corporation (Millennium) submitted for filing a 
rate schedule under which Millennium will engage in wholesale electric 
power and energy transactions as a marketer. Millennium also requested 
waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Millennium 
requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 
34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability 
by Millennium.
    On January 20, 1998, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Rate Applications, Office of Electric Power Regulation, 
granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the 
following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Millennium should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Millennium is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Millennium's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protest, as set forth above, is February 19, 1998. Copies 
of the full text of the order are available from the Commission's 
Public Reference Branch,

[[Page 3888]]

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1866 Filed 1-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-1331.

#### BDO Seidman, LLP, et al., Petitioners v. Shahid R. Khan, et al.

565 U.S. 816, 132 S. Ct. 96,

181 L. Ed. 2d 25,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6814.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, denied.

Same case below, 404 Ill. App. 3d 892, 343 Ill. Dec. 946, 935 N.E.2d 1174.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,284
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,482
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (170)
<INVENTORY>                                     17,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,203
<PP&E>                                          22,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,378)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,078
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,188
<BONDS>                                          2,352
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           160
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,078
<SALES>                                         54,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,140
<CGS>                                           34,723
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,396
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   289
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,511
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,205
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,306
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,019)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,287
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   267.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   267.94
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7566

SAM FRANKLIN DAVIS, III, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROBERT ERWING, Attorney at Law; INA 

WEINMAN, Prosecutor; CANDI RENEE COOK, Victim, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Thomas David Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-00333-TDS-PTS) 

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Sam Franklin Davis, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Sam Franklin Davis, III, appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Davis v. North Carolina, No. 1:09-cv00333-TDS-PTS (M.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2009). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C HR ISTOPHER

R AY M YER S, AKA C hristophe r M y e rs,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-30159

D.C . No. 2:15-c r-00045-JLQ-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington J ustin L. Qua c ke nbush, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 6, 2019 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : IKUTA a

nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s , a n d C HOE-GR O VES, ** Judge
.



# F IL ED JUL 22 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Je nnife r C h oe -Grove s, Judge for the Unite d State s C ourt of Inte rnationa l Tra de , sitting by de s igna tion.C hristophe r M y e rs a ppe a ls his se nte nc e for unla wfully posse ssing a

fire arm in viola tion of 18 U.S.C
. § 922(g). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. 1 In se nte nc ing M y e rs to 77 m onths’ im prisonm e nt c onse c utive to his sta te
se nte nc e of 63 m onths, thedistric t c ourt did not ac knowle dge the a pplic a bility of § 5G1.3(b)(2) of theU.S. Se nte nc ing Guide line s, whic h provide s tha t whe n both the fe de ra l a

n d sta te se nte nc e s arise from

the sa m e “ re le va

nt c onduc t,” the fe de ra l
se nte nc e “ sha ll be im

pose d to run c onc urre ntly to the re m a i nde r of the undisc ha rge d te rm of im p risonm e nt.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)(2). B e c a use the distric t
c ourt did not provide

any re a son for va

ry ing from

§ 5G1.3(b)(2) of theGuide line s in im posing a c onse c utive se nte nc e , we va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s se nte nc ing orde r
and re m and for the distric t c ourt to re c onside r M y e rs’ s se nte nc e in light of tha t
se c t ion. Se e Rosale

s-Mire le s v . Unite d State

s , 138 S. C t. 1897, 1911 (2018); Unite d State s v . Armste ad , 552 F.3d 769, 784 (9th C i r. 2008). In ruling tha

t W a shington Se c ond De g re e Assa u l t, W a sh. R e v. C o de § 9A.36.021, is a

“ c rim e of viole nc e ” unde r § 4B 1.2(a ) of the Guide l ine s , the distric t c o urt did not ha

ve the be ne fit of Stok

e ling v . Unite d State

s , 139 S. C t. 544

1 In a publishe d opinion file d c onc urre ntly with this me m orandum disposition, we

va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of M y e rs’ s Sixth Am e ndm e nt spe e dy tria l c l a im and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with tha t opinion. Unite d State s v . My e r s , __ F.3d ___ (9th C ir. 2019).

2(2019), Unite d State s v . Ve de roff

, 914 F.3d 1238 (9th C ir. 2019), or Unite d State s
v . Robinson , 869 F.3d 933 (9th C i r. 2017). W e re m and to thedistric t c ourt to
re c o nside r this issue

in light of this ne

w c a se la w . V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D.

3